Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] problem with array of boxes

2002-03-16 Thread Tom Lane
Andre Radke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > testdb=# CREATE TABLE boxarray_test (col1 BOX[2]); > testdb=# INSERT INTO boxarray_test VALUES ('{"(3,3),(1,1)","(4,4),(2,2)"}'); > testdb=# SELECT * FROM boxarray_test; > col1 > --- > {(4,4),(2,2)} > (1 row) I've finished looking into

Re: [HACKERS] Client/Server compression?

2002-03-16 Thread Greg Copeland
Some questions for you at the end of this Tom...which I'd been thinking about...and you touched on...hey, you did tell me to ask! :) On Sat, 2002-03-16 at 14:38, Tom Lane wrote: > Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'm talking about something that would be optional. So, what's the co

Re: [HACKERS] Client/Server compression?

2002-03-16 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm talking about something that would be optional. So, what's the cost > of having a little extra optional code in place? It costs just as much in maintenance effort even if hardly anyone uses it. Actually, probably it costs *more*, since seldom-used

Re: [HACKERS] Again, sorry, caching.

2002-03-16 Thread Stephan Szabo
> I was thinking that it could be implemented as a keyword or comment in a query. > Such as: > > select * from table where column = 'foo' cacheable > or > select * from table where column = 'bar' /* cacheable */ > Having caching within PostgreSQL will be good for data integrity. Application > ca

[HACKERS] plsql as an officially supported language?

2002-03-16 Thread Rod Taylor
This is probably a language looking for a purpose before adding it to the core. Here's what I use it for; probably abusively too! Could use untrusted perl to spawn system calls, but shell scripts are much nicer for shell work not to mention transactional updates of structure and control scripts m

Re: [HACKERS] Again, sorry, caching.

2002-03-16 Thread Greg Copeland
On Sat, 2002-03-16 at 08:36, mlw wrote: > Triggers and asynchronous notification are not substitutes for real hard ACID > complient caching. The way you suggest implies only one access model. Take the > notion of a library, they have both web and application access. These should > both be able to

Re: [HACKERS] Again, sorry, caching.

2002-03-16 Thread Greg Copeland
On Sat, 2002-03-16 at 08:01, mlw wrote: [snip] > "If it is mostly static data, why not just make it a static page?" > Because a static page is a maintenance nightmare. One uses a database in a web > site to allow content to be changed and upgraded dynamically and with a minimum > of work. > Oh

Re: [HACKERS] Again, sorry, caching.

2002-03-16 Thread mlw
Triggers and asynchronous notification are not substitutes for real hard ACID complient caching. The way you suggest implies only one access model. Take the notion of a library, they have both web and application access. These should both be able to use the cache. Also, your suggestion does not a

Re: [HACKERS] Again, sorry, caching.

2002-03-16 Thread Greg Copeland
I previously replied to you vaguely describing a way you could implement this by using a combination of client side caching and database tables and triggers to allow you to determine if your cache is still valid. Someone came right behind me, Tom maybe??, and indicated that the proper/ideal way t

[HACKERS] Again, sorry, caching.

2002-03-16 Thread mlw
I traded a couple emails with a guy using one of my open source projects. To make a long story short, he is going to the new version of MySQL for his website because of the new caching feature. He is convinced that it will speed up his web site, and he is probably right. On a web site, a few spec